Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5847/2025closed

S.Muthukumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-03-05Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD)No.5847 of 2025 S.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thiruchendur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

4. V.Sudalaimani ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No. 3 to take necessary action against the 4th respondent for the illegal activities and nuisances made in the petitioner's property in Mupudathi amman Kovil, Nadunaalumoolaikinaru, Tiruchendur District and consequently direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to give police protection on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2025 within the time stipulated Page No. 1 of 4

by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.Janani Priya For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary action against the 4th respondent for the illegal activities, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.01.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he entered into a lease agreement for agriculture purpose for the property belong to the "Mupudathi Amman Kovil Temple, Nadunaalumoolaikinaru, Tiruchendur District, for a period of 5 years from 20.03.2021 to 01.03.2026 and paid a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as lease amount. While so, on 14.01.2025, the 4th respondent along with others trespassed into the property and threatened the petitioner's mother, thereby a complaint was lodged before the 3rd respondent police and they assigned C.S.R.No.24 of 2025, but no action was taken. Therefore, he has filed this petition.

Page No. 2 of 4

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that already the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was closed on 05.02.2025. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

4. Since the prayer of the petitioner is to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.01.2025 and take action based on the representation, and already the 3rd respondent police have considered the representation of the petitioner and the same was closed on 05.02.2025, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance in law. In view of the same, preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in accordance with law, this writ petition is closed. No costs. 05.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL , J.

Mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thiruchendur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

W.P(MD)No.5847 of 2025 05.03.2025 Page No. 4 of 4